lynxxx
Aktives Mitglied
.. Die Massaker, die die Osmanen veranstalteten, waren absolut ohne Ähnlichem im Europa dieser Zeit, ...
Ich würde die osm. Geschichte der Spätphase bis zum 1. Weltkrieg nicht als etwas sooo besonders darstellen wollen, oder die Stärke der Gewalt als etwas spezifisch osman. oder türkisches. Die Rezeption jener tragischen Ereignisse ist eben unterschiedlich intensiv, je nach historiographischem Hintergrund und Interessenschwerpunkt.
Zur Verdeutlichung noch einige Worte von Donald Quataert (googlgebook-link siehe oben):
"Let me begin with the assertion that there was nothing inevitable about these conflicts – all were historically conditioned, that is, produced by quite particular circumstances that evolved in a certain but not unavoidable manner. Other outcomes historically were possible but did not happen because of the way in which events unfolded. Nor, it is important to repeat, are these struggles ancient ones reflecting millennia-old hatreds. Rather, each can be explained with reference to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, through the unfolding of specific events rather than inherent animosities of an alleged racial or ethnic nature. But because these contemporary struggles loom so large and because we assume that present-day hostilities have ancient and general rather than recent
and specific causes, our understanding of the Ottoman inter-communal record has been profoundly obscured."
Es fällt vielen vielleicht schwer, aber Aussagen müssen auch belegt werden, und alle Quellen lassen nur einen Schluss zu:
" In sum, the vast majority of Ottoman subjects in 1914 – of whatever religion and ethnicity – were not seeking to break away but instead retained their identities as Ottoman subjects."
Übersetzung:
"Zusammenfassend, die große Mehrheit der osm. Untertanen - egal welcher Ethnie und Religion - hatte 1914 kein Bedürfnis auszubrechen, sondern behielten ihre Identität als osman. Staatsangehörige."
Damit meint er auch die immer noch zahlreichen griech. und armenischen Einwohner des OR, nicht nur Araber, Türken, Georgier, Kurden, usw., trotz separatistischer Bestrebungen weniger, ja trotz Errichtung des griech. Nationalstaates.
Nur mal einige grausame Ereignisse, von denen du vielleicht noch nichts gehört hast, um darzustellen, dass zunehmende Gewalt und Brutalität im 19. Jh. nicht nur von den Türken zunahmen, weitere siehe auch das übernächste Zitat:
" Differences among subjects always existed but only sometimes, as seen, did these lead to conflicts and violence. But, as in all societies, communal bigotry, intolerance, and violence flared intermittently for different economic, social, and political reasons. Thus, after Greek Uniates left Greek Orthodoxy and established their own church in 1701, the “hostility of the Orthodox Christians towards these perceived renegades degenerated into threats, persecution and riots in which members of one Christian sect burned down the churches of another rite.”7 In another example, Orthodox Christians in Damascus, in 1840, found the mutilated bodies of a high-ranking cleric of the Spanish monastery and his servant near some Jewish homes. And so local Christians whipped up charges of the blood libel, saying that Jews needed Christian blood for their religious rituals, forcing the arrest and torture of some wealthy Jewish merchants. Similarly, when a Greek child drowned in a river near Izmir at Easter time, local Greeks blamed the Jews and began assaulting them. Both the scale and the frequency of violence among Ottoman communal groups increased during the nineteenth century. "
Und hier bettet er nochmal genau deine These von der "besonderen türkischen Gewalt" in einen breiteren historischen Kontext und widerspricht ihr:
"Peaceful relations among Ottoman subjects were the norm over most of the period and the Ottoman system worked relatively well for almost all of its history. [Diesen Satz zitierte ich ja schon eine Thread-Seite zuvor.] These statements, true as they are, will be passionately rejected by many. Images of the “Terrible Turk,” the “Bulgarian horrors” and the Armenian massacres resonate powerfully today, both in the historical imagination and the politics of the early twenty-first century. My goal here is to demystify the violence of the nineteenth-century Ottoman Empire, which certainly had its share of inter-communal strife, by placing it in its wider historical context. Overall, this violence should be understood as part of a global process that has given birth to nation states everywhere, including the Middle East, Europe, the United States, and east and south Asia. By contextualizing this violence, I do not seek to minimize or justify it."
"Ottoman Muslims had no monopoly on bringing death to their neighbors. As early as the 1840s, Maronite Christians and Druze in the Lebanon and Syrian regions began fighting one another. During the initial phases of the Greek war of independence, Orthodox Christian Greeks in 1821 slaughtered Ottoman Muslims in the city of Tripolis. In 1876, Christians in Bulgaria murdered 1,000 Muslims and triggered the Muslim slaughter of 3,700 Christians, the so-called “Bulgarian horrors” when the European press focused on Christian suffering but ignored that of Muslims. Further, Middle East violence was not confined to the nineteenth century. ... Likewise, the pages of American and European history are soaked in the blood of innocent, civilian, victims."
Auf Seite 70 fragt er:
" More specifically, to what extent was the nineteenth-century violence a necessary part of the process by which an area broke away and became a new state separate from the Ottoman Empire? In other words, was violence a necessary and endemic part of nineteenth-century separatist struggles?"
Lese bitte selber in googlebooks seine Antworten weiter nach. Ein wenig habe ich in der vorigen Thread-Seite in meinem langen Post schon das Thema zitiert. Möchte diesen nun nicht noch länger machen, da die meisten ihn wohl nicht lesen werden :grübel:, da ich seit langem immer dasselbe hier poste und mich wiederholen muss... :still:
:winke: